At the risk of being taunted again, I fail to see that I would have spent three years with Jesus and come away believing that the divine narrative was culminated in a series of technical definitions of words that indicate Jesus Christ came to limit salvation to a few Reformed Baptists.

As I said, the reduction of the gospel to a series of logical problems to be solved by refined technical definitions and cross referencing is nuts. What would any 4th grader understand by the Gospel of John? The first 18 verses of chapter 1 summarize the whole book. I refuse to read these great verses as a discussion between universalism, a caricature of Arminianism, and advocates of a limited salvation. How did the Good News get to be the inner workings of interpretation, and not the plain meaning of the story?

To be utterly fair to the iMonk, he was responding to this gem:

How in the world John 3:16 can be isogeted [sic] as a proof-text for limited atonement is beyond the pale of understanding. I'm certain Nicodemus wasn't blown away by the new found thought that God has narrowed to doors to salvation. What's so revolutionary about that? Nicodemus already believed that!

(v15) "...that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life"(v16) "... that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"(v17) "...to save the world through him"(v18) "...whoever believes in him is not condemned"(v20) "...whoever lives by the truth comes into the light"

Nicodemus already had a theology of limited atonement and particular redemption. I seriously doubt Jesus was bolstering what Nicodemus already knew!Posted by Dennis Laing at 08:28 AM

I would post my comments but I have a meeting I cannot miss. When I come back, let's find out what Dennis is trying to say, whether he's right, and then if iMonk has shed any light on the subject worthy of praise.

Well, that's a shame: Blogrolling.com has ceased to be. If you're an old member of the blogroll, e-mail me and I'll see to relink you in this space.

DISCLAIMER!

Here's the part where I try to avoid getting sued ...

As you undoubtedly noticed, I like comics. I wouldn't call myself a "fan boy" because I don't give a flying FOOM what they are worth. That said, almost all the images on my blog are scanned from comics I own -- so they are scanned from comics I own and are used under what I assume is the basic tenets of "fair use" under copyright law. It would be frankly impossible to tell you where each images comes from specifically.

All other images not covered by this disclaimer are the property of their respective owners, and if you are one of those people and you see your image on my blog, tell me what you want me to do about it and I will. No sense making people angry.